This section addresses an example of how to interpret the DAS following a
step-by-step interpretive method.

Rigid adherence to a g theory of intelligence would focus attention
exclusively on the GCA score of the DAS. The most extreme application of the
various separate-factor theories of intelligence (s) might lead interpreters of
the DAS to examine the 6 subtests, or even items within those subtests, for
evidence of specific abilities. One difficulty with such a fine analysis is that
reducing the number of items diminishes reliability. The GCA is more reliable
than the verbal, nonverbal reasoning, or spatial cluster scores. Almost any
group of subtests is more reliable than a single subtest.

An intermediate approach may be the wisest. Much as Elliott (1990) and others
recommend, it makes sense to attack a DAS profile hierarchically, beginning with
the most reliable groupings of subtests and working through successively less
reliable, smaller groupings before reluctantly finishing, as a last resort, with
the least reliable data: individual subtests. If the evaluator adheres to a g
theory, that analysis would be considered an investigation of deviations from
the studentís overall intellectual ability. An s orientation would consider
the process one of separating the studentís levels of intellectual abilities
in various factors or "intelligences."

If each of the three clusters is coherent Ė tightly clustered within itself
and separate from other factors Ė the three factors would be the most
reasonable level of interpretation of that studentís DAS. That is, if the
subtest scores within the Verbal, Nonverbal Reasoning, and Spatial Clusters are
each tightly grouped, and the clusters scores differ significantly and
uncommonly from one another, then it makes sense to consider the verbal,
nonverbal, and spatial domains separately: the student appears to demonstrate
significantly different levels of ability when dealing with verbal, nonverbal,
and spatial tasks.

Sometimes, however, we need to look further. One or more of the three
clusters may not be coherent and may require additional subdivision. If there is
notable scatter within one or more of the Clusters, the next level of
interpretation might be the narrow ability interpretation, which separate
cognitive processes into more specific abilities. This is not an excuse
to leap ahead to analysis of individual subtests. It is, instead, a signal to
cautiously consider other groupings of subtest scores.

What this approach and many others share in common is the idea that,
especially for learning disabled students, it is not reasonable to accept the
"Full Scale" GCA (BCA, IQ, GCI, MPC, SAS, etc.) as the only measure of
a student's intellectual ability. Instead, interpretation must take into account
strengths and weaknesses, and must recognize the fact that a specific learning
disability can affect intelligence test scores as well as other measures of
ability and achievement. The analysis is preferable to abandoning the
intellectual assessment altogether (e.g., Siegel, 1989). The following
illustration is intended to demonstrate this argument. It is absolutely not
intended to suggest that this is the only way to carry out the necessary
analysis.

The interpretive steps outlined and recommended below (Table XXX-23) involve
a complete and thorough analysis of all the DAS data and results. The
interpreter must evaluate the DAS results utilizing a practical as well as
statistical approach. After the interpreter has completed all the steps
necessary for making logical decisions, hypotheses can be generated from the
results.

Most interpretive schemes (e.g., Kaufman, 1994; Sattler, 1992) begin with the
most general aspects (global scores) and progress to more detailed aspects of
the individual's performance (factors or clusters, subtest variability,
qualitative responses). These procedures allow for both a quantitative and
qualitative interpretation of the test, which may leadto
an understanding of how the person obtained the results and performed the tasks
presented by the test (Kaplan, 1988). As one moves through the successive steps
presented here, readers are encouraged to consult the cluster and subtest
information included earlier in the chapter. That section may provide relevant
information about the DAS subtests as well as possible interpretive hypotheses
and various strategies for expanding understanding of the person's underlying
processes.

The approach to test interpretation that is offered here is based upon a
statistical and actuarial approach that leads into hypothesis generation.
Without this statistical approach, any interpretation would be less valid and
reliable, and would be more likely to be inaccurate. By developing interpretive
hypotheses that are based upon a statistical and actuarial analysis of the data
and then coupling these findings with clinical observation, evaluators are able
to make statements about a child's abilities relative to others of the same age
as well as make statements based on the child's own performance. As hypotheses
are generated., they are checked by testing them against the child's test
performance and behaviors found on this and other tests as well as other sources
of information, such as interviews, historical data, and classroom observations.

When interpreting any test, it is important to remember that the most valid
interpretations are based upon the most reliable aspects of the test.
Interpretation should focus on the most general areas before moving to the less
general areas. In the case of the DAS, the most general and most reliable areas
are the General Conceptual Ability (GCA), and then the Verbal, Nonverbal
Reasoning, and the Spatial cluster scores. Below these measures are the Shared
Ability factors, and finally the individual subtests.

Table-23

Successive steps in the interpretation of the DAS

Step One: Evaluate the GCA

Step Two: Evaluate GCA-Cluster Differences

Identify any significant differences between the DAS GCA and each
Cluster (Verbal, Nonverbal Reasoning, and Spatial)

Identify the frequency of any observed significant differences

If there are differences that are significant and unusual,
interpret Clusters rather than the GCA

Identify the base-rate frequency of any observed significant
differences

Step Eight: Evaluate Qualitative Responses

The DAS provides the examiner many opportunities to observe meaningful,
clinical behaviors. Examiners should generate and test hypotheses based not only
upon the resulting scores but also on these relevant behaviors.

Since each successive step of a DAS interpretation requires examiners to
judge the adequacy of certain scores, an analysis (without any hypotheses
generated) should first be completed. The DAS Summary Page contains information
to aid examiners with this task (critical significance values, Mean Core T
score, etc). Examiners may also find the DAS
Analysis Sheet (Exhibit-4) useful when beginning any interpretation of a DAS
protocol. A completed DAS Analysis Sheet summarizes the statistical results that
can then be used in each of the successive steps.